Is there going to be an $11.4 billion general obligation water bond on California’s November election ballot? Not a chance, though there might be a compromise measure on that same ballot for $6 billion, if Jerry Brown gets his way.

All sorts of people opposed to the bigger bond say they’re against it because it’s too subject to boondoggles and pork. The $6 billion alternative by Brown would, transparently, do away with at least some of the pork.

But Republicans say that at a minimum California needs $3 billion to begin to build two new reservoirs that will provide water storage to capture water in wet years for use in dry periods. They claim that Brown’s proposal does not meet this minimum threshold. Late last week, Republican senators offered an $8.7 billion alternative that retains the $3 billion.

What do we think? We think California needs to save more water from the wet years to tide us over (pun intended) during the dry years, and on that basis spending money to enlarge the state’s storage capacity makes eminent good sense. The conservation argument is derived, of course, from Moses’ interpretation of his Pharaoh’s dreams about fat cattle and fat ears of corn being consumed by thin cattle and anemic corn. Moses predicted that a seven-year drought would follow seven years of plenty. The Pharaoh, according to the Bible, took the advice and thus saved his subjects from starvation.

We’re verging on a fourth year of drought in this state, which brings us uncomfortably close to the seven-year prediction, and thus far the only solutions offered by Sacramento and various and sundry communities across the state are fines for not cutting use of water for lawns and cutting down on private car washings. Late last month the State Water Resources Control Board in Sacramento approved regulations that include fines up to $500 a day for residents who waste water, including making it illegal to hose down driveways and sidewalks, waste water on lawns or wash vehicles using a hose without a shut-off nozzle. The regulations took effect at the end of July.

The Republicans' focus on expansion of storage capacity makes increasingly good sense in the face of a recent study which showed that this year's drought and the resulting water shortage will cost the state about $1.5 billion in direct agricultural costs, including $810 million in crop revenue and over $200 million in dairy and livestock. Total drought-related costs to the California economy for this year are projected at $2.2 billion, with a loss of 17,100 seasonal and part-time jobs. So spending a total of $3 billion to save at least $2.2 billion a year seems like a no-brainer. And given how well-known Sacramento is for its brain shortage, maybe new reservoirs have a chance after all.